Can we now expect the unreliability and costs of EPRS via EDF/Centrica? How much is the floor price and how high is the feed in charge Huhne has negotiated for nuclear and how much of any excess in clean up cost liabilities will be foisted on to the British taxpayer?

Cyclopsvue makes a plea for "renewables" but surely the high capacity charges the gas powered generators have extorted for back up power undermine any shred of a case for wind power?

In the short run combined cycle gas is the only realistic option we have - though once the current climate hysteria subdides Kingsnorth and a few more of its ilk would improve security and diversity and make economic sense.

2nd paragraph:
"The fiasco led Siemens of Germany to end a joint venture with Areva, the lead contractor, reducing the chances of Franco-German co-operation on further EPRs."
As a matter of fact, Siemens wanted to increase its participation and with the deny they decided to eject.

4th paragraph:
"It is rare for a plane to crash into a nuclear power plant".
The importance of this requirement was not neglected. The boundary conditions which result in the different profiles of the nuclear power plant are way more complex than this feature.

The nuclear nuclear renaissance is a fact, and to overcome this challenge, EDF and AREVA are working together, not "arm-wrestling". Disagreements are normal when it comes to revolutionary projects. Nevertheless, only because of the collaborative relationship of these companies that they are able to place themselves as leaders of the market and as innovation examples for all the energy industry.

C'mon Economist, force yourselves to say it how it really is instead of smokescreens and political correctness, your American readers really need to hear the truth, to really understand that yes, foreigners CAN n do a far better job than they can, and that, gulp, Westinghouse, is a JAPANESE company. That's a great Japanese name. Say it again Sam, Westinghouse is JAPANESE!

"many customers in poor or middle-income countries do not think that a little extra safety is worth the hefty extra cost. It is rare for a plane to crash into a nuclear power plant."

That says it all. Humanity is again proven to be so shortsighted. The protection is not against the infinitesimally small risk of an aircraft crashing by chance into a nuclear reactor but the much bigger chance of some bunch of Al Qaeda idiots purposefully sending a plane or two into one or more reactors and causing a Chernobyl-type of event that will contaminate the surrounding area, and beyond, for thousands of years.

I truly believe in the benefits of nuclear technology but the LAST thing that we can allow is for short cuts to be taken. No manufacturer should be allowed to be in business touting a less-safe reactor. Shameful.

It all boils down to megawatt cost and greenhouse gases. Here the nuclear alternative beats the lot.
True, the plane crashes have been rare on power plants, but it is best to keep it that way also in the future.